DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/31/2026. Claims 1-56 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
4. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for claims 13-18 and 41-48 is acknowledged by the applicant. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of last office action remains the same.
5. Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS et al. (US 20210051622) in view of DONG et al. (US 20230224848) and further in view of BAYESTEH et al. (US 20210302561) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s argument: Dong does not overcome the deficiencies of Manolakos. Dong is generally directed to "processing a position reference signal (PRS) configuration." Dong, Abstract. At portions cited by the Office Action, Dong describes that "the plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations include different PRS sending periods, different PRS sending bandwidths, different PRS resource IDs and so on." Id. [0223].
The Office Action alleges that the different PRS configurations of Dong are relevant to "wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS," as recited in previously-presented independent claim 1. However, Dong does not teach or suggest that any first PRS configuration "comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP)" and that any second PRS configuration "comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Indeed, the Office Action concedes that neither Manolakos nor Dong teach or suggest "PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)." Thus, Dong also does not teach or suggest that the "first type of downlink positioning reference signals (DL-
PRS) that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP) and a second type of DL-PRS that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Bayeseth does not overcome the deficiencies of Dong and Manolakos. Bayeseth is generally directed to "location of nodes in a network" using "smart reflectors having unknown location." Bayeseth, Abstract. At the portions cited by the Office Action, Bayeseth describes that "to enable environmental tagging, as a specific type of smart reflector, RISs are employed." Id. [0044]. However, Bayeseth does not teach or suggest any "first type of downlink positioning reference signals" and "second type of DL-PRS," let alone a first type "that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP)" and a second type "that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above. In paragraph 0223, Dong teaches “The foregoing plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations can meet different positioning requirements and positioning precisions of the UE. For example, the plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations include different PRS sending periods, different PRS sending bandwidths, different PRS resource IDs and so on”. In paragraph 0237, Dong teaches “The foregoing plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations can meet different UE positioning requirements, positioning precisions and positioning types. For example, the plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations include different PRS sending periods, different PRS sending bandwidths, and different PRS resource IDs.” Thus, Dong does teach “wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS” as recited in claim 1. On the other hand, BAYESTEH in the same field of endeavor teaches “downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP) and a second type of DL-PRS that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)” as recited in the new amendments in claim 1. For example, in paragraph 0123, BAYESTEH teaches “Referring now to FIG. 8, shown is an arrangement that includes a TP 300, an RIS 302 having a fixed location that is known to entities in the network (including the TP and EDs) and an ED 304. The TP 300 is configured to transmit multiple primary beams containing a PRS for the EDs in a given coverage area, including ED 304 in the illustrated example. The primary beams are indexed from B1 to BM, assuming there are M such beams in total, and are labelled as such in FIG. 8. Out of these beams, one or more are transmitted towards the RIS 302 (more generally to an RIS with a location that is known to the TP and the ED). A beam that is transmitted towards the RIS 302 is referred to herein as an RIS beam, but other than the direction, it need not be different from any other beam. In the illustrated example, an incident beam BM is transmitted towards the RIS 302 and is therefore an RIS beam. RIS 302 directs a reflected beam towards some pre-determined/pre-configured directions. These beams from the RIS 302 are referred to herein as virtual beams. The direction of reflection for the RIS 302 is configured, and known to the receiving node, for each of one or more time periods that the incident beam BM is being transmitted towards the RIS 302.” Also, in figures 10-11 below, Dong shows direct downlink PRS signal from TP 300 to ED 304 and downlink PRS signal are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) 302.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, BAYESTEH in the same field of endeavor teaches “downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP) and a second type of DL-PRS that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)” as recited in the new amendments in claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) as taught by BAYESTEH to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to improve the beamforming gain for uplink and downlink communications (par 0043) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims (13-18 and 41-48) in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
8. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations (1) “means for transmitting a capability report indicating that the UE is configured to measure a first type of DL-PRS (downlink positioning reference signals) and a second type of DL-PRS; and means for measuring the first type of DL-PRS received directly from a TRP (transmission/reception point) or the second type of DL-PRS received from the TRP via a RIS (reconfigurable intelligent surface…” in claim 13; (2) “means for disabling measurement of the second type of DL-PRS in response to a measurement of the first type of DL-PRS by the UE having at least a threshold quality” in claim 14; (3) “means for transmitting, from the UE to a network entity, an indication that a measurement report from the UE will lack a measurement of the second type of DL-PRS” in claim 15; (4) “means for measuring the second type of DL-PRS in response to an inability of the UE to obtain a measurement of the first type of DL-PRS with at least a threshold quality” in claim 16; (5) “means for determining, as a higher-quality measurement, which of the first measurement or the second measurement has a higher measurement quality; means for determining, as a lower-quality measurement” in claim 17; (6) “means for descrambling the second type of DL-PRS based on an identity of the TRP and an identity of the RIS” in claim 18; and (7) “means for transmitting a first DL-PRS (downlink positioning reference signal) of a first type of DL-PRS; and means for transmitting, to a RIS (reconfigurable intelligent surface), a second DL-PRS of a second type of DL-PRS” in claim 41; (8) “means for transmitting a first DL-PRS (downlink positioning reference signal) of a first type of DL-PRS; and means for transmitting, to a RIS (reconfigurable intelligent surface), a second DL-PRS of a second type of DL-PRS” in claim 42; (9) “means for transmitting the second DL-PRS with a higher number of repetitions per instance than the first DL-PRS” in claim 43; (10) “means for transmitting the second DL-PRS with a different carrier frequency than the first DL-PRS” in claim 44; (11) “means for transmitting a first source signal of a first type of source signal; and means for transmitting, to the RIS, a second source signal of a second type of source signal” in claim 45; (12) “means for receiving an indication of a first transmission beam corresponding to a received source signal; and means for transmitting a quasi co-location (QCL) indication to the UE indicating a QCL type of a second transmission beam relative to the first transmission beam” in claim 46; (13) “means for transmitting, to the RIS, a third source signal of the second type of source signal, the second source signal being quasi co-located with the second DL-PRS with a first quasi co-location type, the third source signal being quasi co-located with the second DL-PRS with a second quasi co-location type; and means for transmitting the second source signal and the third source signal with a same index number” in claim 47; (14) “means for transmitting, from the network entity to a UE (user equipment), timing and frequency of the second type of source signal” in claim 48 in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. Claims 1, 6-7, 12-13, 18-19, 24-28, 33-36, 41-44 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS et al. (US 20210051622) (hereinafter MANOLAKOS) in view of BAYESTEH et al. (US 20210302561) (hereinafter BAYESTEH) and further in view of DONG et al. (US 20230224848) (hereinafter Dong) (MANOLAKOS is disclosed in the IDS filed on 11/29/2023).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, 19:
As shown in figures 1-13, MANOLAKOS discloses a user equipment (UE) (see UE in figures 1-3, 6-9, and 13) comprising:
a transceiver (310 in figure 3A) configured to transmit and receive wireless signals (par 0059-0065);
a memory (340 in figure 3A) (par 0065); and
a processor (332 in figure 3A) (par 0059-0065) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (310 in figure 3A) and the memory (340 in figure 3A) and configured to (par 0059-0065):
transmit, via the transceiver (310 in figure 3A), a capability report indicating that the UE is configured to measure a first type of downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) and a second type of DL-PRS (abstract, par 0006, 0089, 0153, 0161, 0175, 0179, claim 1);
measure the first type of DL-PRS received directly from the TRP (figure 13, abstract, par 0179-0181, claim 1); and
measure the second type of DL-PRS received from the TRP (abstract, par 0134-0135, 0180-0181, claim 1).
MANOLAKOS discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP) and a second type of DL-PRS that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS; and via a RIS.
However, BAYESTEH in the same field of endeavor teaches downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) that comprises DL-PRSs that are received directly from a transmission/reception point (TRP) (see direct DL-PRS signal from TP 300 to ED 304 in figures 10-11) and a second type of DL-PRS that comprises DL-PRSs that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (see direct DL-PRS signal that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) 302); and via a RIS (302 in figures 85, 10-11) (see examiner’s response above, figures 8-12, par 0043-0044, 0051-0060, 0123, 0137-0144, figures 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) as taught by BAYESTEH to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to improve the beamforming gain for uplink and downlink communications (par 0043) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
MANOLAKOS and BAYESTEH disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS.
However, Dong in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS (in par 0223 Dong teaches “the plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations include different PRS sending periods, different PRS sending bandwidths, different PRS resource IDs and so on”. The plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations interpreted to be the first type of DL-PRS and the second type of DL-PRS) (also see examiner’s response above and par 0100-0101, 0119-0120, 0131-0132, 0138, 0225, 0237, 0247, 0258-0258). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different downlink PRS signals as taught by Dong to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to meet the positioning requirements of different positioning measurements, and improve the quality of service (QoS) of positioning measurement (par 0138) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 25, 33, 41, 49:
As shown in figures 1-13, MANOLAKOS discloses a network entity (see BS in figures 1-3 and 6-9) comprising:
a transceiver (310 in figure 3A) configured to transmit and receive wireless signals (par 0014, 0059-0065;
a memory (340 in figure 3A) (par 0065); and
a processor (332 in figure 3A) (par 0059-0065) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (310 in figure 3A) and the memory (340 in figure 3A) and configured to (par 0014, 0059-0065):
transmit, directly to a user equipment (UE) via the transceiver, a first downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) (see figure 6) (abstract, par 0006, 0089, 0103-0105, 0153, 0161, 0175, 0179, claim 1); and
transmit, a second DL-PRS of a second type of DL-PRS (abstract, par 0134-0135, 0180-0181, claim 1).
MANOLAKOS discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching to a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), wherein the first type of DL-PRS comprises a DL- PRS that is transmitted directly by the network entity to the UE, wherein the second type of DL-PRS comprises a DL-PRS that is transmitted by the network entity to the RIS, wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS.
However, BAYESTEH in the same field of endeavor teaches to a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (302 figures 10-11), wherein the first type of DL-PRS comprises a DL- PRS that is transmitted directly by the network entity to the UE (see direct DL-PRS signal from TP 300 to ED 304 in figures 10-11), wherein the second type of DL-PRS comprises a DL-PRS that is transmitted by the network entity to the RIS (see direct DL-PRS signal that are reflected via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) 302) (see examiner’s response above, figures 8-12, par 0043-0044, 0051-0060, 0123, 0137-0144, figures 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) as taught by BAYESTEH to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to improve the beamforming gain for uplink and downlink communications (par 0043) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
MANOLAKOS and BAYESTEH disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS.
However, Dong in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first type of DL-PRS is different from the second type of DL-PRS (in par 0223 Dong teaches “the plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations include different PRS sending periods, different PRS sending bandwidths, different PRS resource IDs and so on”. The plurality of sets of downlink PRS configurations interpreted to be the first type of DL-PRS and the second type of DL-PRS) (also see examiner’s response above and par 0100-0101, 0119-0120, 0131-0132, 0138, 0225, 0237, 0247, 0258-0258). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different downlink PRS signals as taught by Dong to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to meet the positioning requirements of different positioning measurements, and improve the quality of service (QoS) of positioning measurement (par 0138) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 18, 24, 26, 34, 42 and 50:
MANOLAKOS further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to descramble the second type of DL-PRS based on an identity of the TRP (par 0085).
MANOLAKOS discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching and an identity of the RIS.
However, BAYESTEH in the same field of endeavor teaches and an identity of the RIS (par 0045, 0047-0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) as taught by BAYESTEH to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to improve the beamforming gain for uplink and downlink communications (par 0043) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 27, 35, 43 and 51:
MANOLAKOS further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the second DL-PRS with a higher number of repetitions per instance than the first DL-PRS (in par 0089 MANOLAKOS teaches “different periods can be used for downlink PRS resources within a downlink PRS resource set”. Different period interpreted to be “transmit the second DL-PRS with a higher number of repetitions per instance than the first DL-PRS”).
Regarding claims 28, 36, 44 and 52:
MANOLAKOS further discloses transmit the second DL-PRS with a different carrier frequency than the first DL-PRS, or a different bandwidth than the first DL-PRS (par 0086), or one or more different timing characteristics than the first DL-PRS, or a different codeword than the first DL-PRS, or any combination thereof.
13. Claims 2, 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS in view of BAYESTEH and further in view of Dong as applied to claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 above and further in view of Cui et al. (US 20240397395) (hereinafter Cui).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14 and 20:
MANOLAKOS, Dong and BAYESTEH disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching disable measurement of the second type of DL-PRS in response to a measurement of the first type of DL-PRS by the UE having at least a threshold quality.
However, Cui in the same field of endeavor teaches disable measurement of the second type of DL-PRS (1013 in figure 10) in response to a measurement of the first type of DL-PRS (1005 in figure 10) by the UE having at least a threshold quality (see figure 10, par 0084-0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use bandwidth switching as taught by Cui to modify the system and method of MANOLAKOS in order to improve the configuration of measurement gaps used by the UE for positioning measurements (par 0024) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 3-5, 9-11, 15-17, 21-23, 29-32, 37-40, 45-48, 53-56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, MANOLAKOS does not teach or suggest to transmit, via the transceiver to a network entity, an indication that a measurement report from the UE will lack a measurement of the second type of DL-PRS.
The prior art of record, MANOLAKOS also does not teach or suggest discloses to measure the second type of DL-PRS in response to an inability of the processor to obtain a measurement of the first type of DL-PRS with at least a threshold quality.
The prior art of record, MANOLAKOS also does not teach or suggest obtain a first measurement of the first type of DL-PRS and a second measurement of the second type of DL-PRS; determine, as a higher-quality measurement, which of the first measurement or the second measurement has a higher measurement quality; determine, as a lower-quality measurement, which of the first measurement or the second measurement has a lower measurement quality; and transmit, via the transceiver to a network entity, the higher-quality measurement before, if at all, transmitting the lower-quality measurement to the network entity.
The prior art of record, MANOLAKOS also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, a first source signal of a first type of source signal; and transmit, via the transceiver to the RIS, a second source signal of a second type of source signal.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights